Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by pyuser583 on Monday July 01, 2024 @09:46PM (#40852807)

When I studied politics as an undergraduate, my insanely liberal professors said: “Roe was a terribly decided decision. It was sloppy legal reasoning, and overall pretty embarrassing. That was rectified by Planned Parenthood v Casey in 1992.”

Almost everyone agrees with you on the emanations of penumbras. Nobody wants that. It was rectified by Casey in 1992.

Roe also claimed abortion was a right because doctors should not worry about the law. Women didn’t have a right to abortion at all. Doctors did. That was fixed by Casey in 1992, and probably a bit early.

Roe hasn’t been the defining law on abortion since 1992 because so many people, pro-choicers especially, regarded it as very flawed.

You are attacking straw men. Please stop.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by rayiner on Monday July 01, 2024 @10:10PM (#40852924)

Casey was eloquently written, but relied on Roe for the existence of the underlying abortion right, without offering a more rigorous foundation. It still ultimately rests on Griswold’s “emanations from penumbras.”

Casey was the start of the self-licking ice cream cone the abortion right eventually became—asserted to exist because it was said to exist by a precedent nobody could defend.

[ Parent | on HN ]